It's controversial to say, but at the beginning of WoW most good players interested in PvP went horde. Generally the alliance had a softer, more feminine image and the horde was full of badass ugly people so obviously it would appeal more to angsty young guy wanting to stab shit up. No surprise, in vanilla and TBC, horde was the completely dominant faction everywhere except AV ( and even there it was only 40-60 or something).

Not a lot has changed in that regard. Alliance still have a very "Disney" image that would appeal to female and younger players, and the horde still have the badass image (excluding blood elves). Since the best pvp players overwhelmingly tend to be young men, it stands to reason that the faction that piques their interest will be stronger in pvp.

I should add that for much of TBC, Wotlk, cata and MoP, alliance had superior pvp racials. There's nothing inherently better about the horde, it's just a case of which demographics prefer which faction. Demographics are a huge deal in WoW which people overlook; the same reason why rogues are ever-present in high level pvp despite having the lowest population and irrespective of patch balance, tends to be because the demographic that plays rogues is very different from the one that plays... for example hunter or druid.

In what sort of way? 9/10 25 mans were Horde and 10/10 in 10 mans... and in game lore, a combined force of horde and alliance and panda were needed to take down... the HORDE WARCHIEF, which tells me that the Alliance need a lot of help to take down the Horde Warchief, and in the end, the Horde leaders told the Alliance to GFTO when it was finished.

wut? We must have played different game. Varian was prepared for all out war against Garrosh without taking into account of the rebels before SoO. He realized that the horde was fighting a civil war so he used it to his advantage to lessen the casualties on AA's part not because he had no other choice. That's what we call being smart.

Also, noone told AA to GTFO. Varian didn't start a war after that because he didn't want to cause anymore unneccesary bloodshed. Wrathion was MAD that he didn't seize the opportunity to dismantle the Horde.

Care to offer any scientific explanation for this? When you are talking populations of millions, there should be no inherent differences between the players. It is possible that there are learned differences, ie feedback loops over time have changed things, but where did it start?

It doesn't make sense that on average, with 55% of the population, alliance should have shorter queues. They are 20% more populous than horde.

There is no logic in this statement. Very often people play BGs to earn HP. They do so because they do not have full HP gear. Ergo, the faction with more HP overall will have better gear. It's also pretty obvious when you look at players in normal BGs that many are still building up the HP gear.

Again, no logic behind this statement. Logic dictates that the more BGs you participate in, the more experience you will get. Period.

It's not about BIS gear. It's about average ilevel in a group. Unless both teams are fully decked out in CP gear in every slot, honor gear is still making a difference. Also you do some conquest from normal BGs. The bottom line is that the faction with a higher winning record is going to have, on average, a higher ilevel of gear.

Is this a real statistic, or one you pulled out of thin air? Look, either way it doesn't make a difference. There are less horde than alliance. This is true in both EU and the US. The ratio is approximately 55%:45% which means there are 20% more alliance than horde. That means on average horde players are getting in 20% more BGs each. Even if horde queues are longer, alliance players are still playing less, it just means they queue less often. The logic behind my theory still stands.

Care to offer any scientific explanation for this? When you are talking populations of millions, there should be no inherent differences between the players. It is possible that there are learned differences, ie feedback loops over time have changed things, but where did it start?

just look in chat. on horde we always try to win. the amount of giveups i see on alliance side is just stupid. its 0-0 in wsg. but horde almost scorded. there is always some1 who yells let them win its faster that way.

It doesn't make sense that on average, with 55% of the population, alliance should have shorter queues. They are 20% more populous than horde.

like i said because we all do pvp same as we all do heroic raiding right?

There is no logic in this statement. Very often people play BGs to earn HP. They do so because they do not have full HP gear. Ergo, the faction with more HP overall will have better gear. It's also pretty obvious when you look at players in normal BGs that many are still building up the HP gear.

if hp is not bis the amount of hp you can earn doesn't matter because there is better gear. and on horde i mostly see cp geared players and a few are full hp. maybe 1 of the 15 is building up a hp set. he isn't going to make a diffrence.

Again, no logic behind this statement. Logic dictates that the more BGs you participate in, the more experience you will get. Period.

fighting bots/noobs doesn't teach you anyting. does it teach you to fake cast? or kite? not because bots/noob fight stupid and i can still win from them with 1 hand on my back.

It's not about BIS gear. It's about average ilevel in a group. Unless both teams are fully decked out in CP gear in every slot, honor gear is still making a difference. Also you do some conquest from normal BGs. The bottom line is that the faction with a higher winning record is going to have, on average, a higher ilevel of gear.

sure but the amount is minimal and by the time it really matters cp will take over. and hp gear is about the same as 520+ pve gear. so even hp gear in normal bgs is the very minimal.

Is this a real statistic, or one you pulled out of thin air? Look, either way it doesn't make a difference. There are less horde than alliance. This is true in both EU and the US. The ratio is approximately 55%:45% which means there are 20% more alliance than horde. That means on average horde players are getting in 20% more BGs each. Even if horde queues are longer, alliance players are still playing less, it just means they queue less often. The logic behind my theory still stands.

again we ALL do pvp like we ALL do heroic SoO right. its more horde care about pvp then alliance care about pvp.

so all you did was talk crap. because you didn't show any statments to. and just because you say your logic behind your theory still stand doesn't make it true or someting.

op you cant bring up stats and numbers then remove relevant stats and numbers to make your argument look better(IOC and AV stats).

OP is a fgt

Infracted.

Are you serious or just trolling? Two BG's where Alliance wins and the rest Horde wins 75%+ of the time... its called Statistics.

I know it must feel awesome to be on Horde side but any amount of logic applied shows the glaring disadvantage Alliance has in BG's ... whether you think they're "lol" or not, its still an aspect of the game.

Are you serious or just trolling? Two BG's where Alliance wins and the rest Horde wins 75%+ of the time... its called Statistics.

I know it must feel awesome to be on Horde side but any amount of logic applied shows the glaring disadvantage Alliance has in BG's ... whether you think they're "lol" or not, its still an aspect of the game.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

And thats how you're using them right now.

Originally Posted by Endus

which is kind of like saying "of COURSE you can't see the unicorns, unicorns are invisible, silly."

Look it is clear that Horde wins more, and I hate it as much as the next Ally. Even though I have a Horde and I can get on it as an undergeared useless noob and still win games, that's just not fun at all. Winning on Alliance is far more satisfying. Anyways, OP, your post is desperate as hell. People know that Horde win more so they roll Horde, simple as that.

Care to offer any scientific explanation for this? When you are talking populations of millions, there should be no inherent differences between the players. It is possible that there are learned differences, ie feedback loops over time have changed things, but where did it start?

OQ.

Premades > Random Shlobs

OQ was adopted earlier and in greater numbers by the horde faction. There are also more pvp oriented horde guilds.

They're aren't any more powerful in some hidden clandestine way. The typical players one would run accross in a random BG aren't any better or worse on either side either.

Horde racial are slightly better in terms of PvP through put in random BGs, they wait longer in queue so there are less bots and more incentive to do well once in, so you didn't "waste" that 13 mins in queue. That's about it. The rank and file in random BGs are the same caliber of player on both sides.

I think Horde racials have little to do with it and it is not just that they are winning more, it is how they are winning, most losses are not even close they are complete blowouts where not just one or two Horde players out KB's and damaging Alliance it is entire Horde teams doing it.

This is what I see all the time;

Unless you believe that in a completely random environment in everything but IoC and AV the Horde consistently get full groups made up of higher geared better players, they are indeed " more powerful in some hidden clandestine way".

I don't explain that very exactly, but in EU Alterac and Isle of Conquest, the strategy is clear on the alliance side since the start and everyone follows it, and we more often than not win. The same can be said for Horde and Arathi Basin with the blacksmith, alliance, at least in my experience, don't go to the blacksmith since the start, which is bad, and is more often than not, a loss. As for the other bgs, in silvershard mines for example, Horde, even with the recent changes have a faster access to the fastest carts, the other bgs are also probably fastest for Horde. I cant' confirm this as I play Alliance only.

I think Horde racials have little to do with it and it is not just that they are winning more, it is how they are winning, most losses are not even close they are complete blowouts where not just one or two Horde players out KB's and damaging Alliance it is entire Horde teams doing it.

This is what I see all the time;

Unless you believe that in a completely random environment in everything but IoC and AV the Horde consistently get full groups made up of higher geared better players, they are indeed " more powerful in some hidden clandestine way".

I can screenshot random bgs with horde LOSING terribly as well, doesn't make it true.

People please learn to spell this word. I might be wrong but 10 years ago, on the internet, people could actually use this word correctly.

alliance looses everything but AV and IoC fairly consistently, which most horde players just blacklist anyway, so what's left is the bots, the alliance can win against bots
yes you can screen shot random BGs of horde loosing, but on average you are going to win more that's a fact

in summary, if you like pvp you are going to save yourself a lot of time and nerves rerolling/race changing to horde

(Edit: Before someone asks, my PvE main is Alliance - but I PvP on both sides, and was originally a horde spriest)

Horde actually do have some random BG advantages that aren't very obvious.

For example, most people consider Arathi Basin to be one of the fairest maps, right?
- Yet, almost everyone recognizes the incredible rotate advantage that Blacksmith provides - it halves the rotate distance of any other 3-node setup
- the Horde get to the Blacksmith flag so much faster than the Alliance, that they can reach it and cap before the Alliance can arrive to interrupt the cap (that is an enormous advantage), this is because the Horde bridge extends directly from spawn to the flag, which is on the horde side of the island
- further, defending Farm is slightly easier than defending Stables (because of the better LoS on the buildings, and the immediate LoS from horde GY to the flag, while Allliance are barricaded by the building)
- it's subtle differences, it doesn't make the horde Always win or anything silly, but it's a tangible tactical advantage

Twin Peaks
- again we see subtle advantages favouring the horde
- the best route to run the Horde flag is down the side ramp, past the Line of Sight of the alliance berserker hut, under the reinforcements of the horde GY, behind the LoS of the horde Renew tower, around the safety of the horde lake, and into the flag room - it's a straight run that involves being LoS of the middle of the map for almost the entire map, except when either under your GY, or defended by a lake
- compare to the Alliance flag run - which can either swim out across a lake (virtually a death trap if you are in combat), or through mid (an easy intercept for the horde), there is no LoS on the horde berserker hut, no LoS in the valley beside the Alliance GY, then you have the Alliance GY, a short LoS around the Renew House, then you run through the mid to get up either the left ramp or mid ramp (no lake-shield)
- again, not a huge advantage, but it's pointedly harder to intercept a horde FC than it is an alliance one

Battle for Gilneas
- again, subtle advantages (noticing the pattern yet?)
- Mines has a massive LOS to mid - making it very easy to spot an Alliance wave incoming, while Lighthouse can't see incoming until they are coming down the hillside and leaping the river - without a proactive spotter on the hill, the alliance have seconds to respond to an incoming wave, while the horde can spot an ally wave on the hilltop almost a minute before they are at the flag
- another surprise flank can happen on Waterworks by the hidden Horde path - the alliance have to rush through lower-mid or around the river-shore (both visible all the way from Lighthouse/Spawn) - so the Horde can spot a WW push coming almost a minute ahead of time, while the Alliance can at any time have the entire absent horde team seemingly spawn behind the horde-houses at WW (in casting range of the flag)
- in addition to the Mine-sight advantage, Mine has a series of obstacles for the alliance to hurdle / get stuck on, while the equivalent obstructions for the Alliance at Lighthouse are actually between the Alliance graveyard and rotate, and the LH flag (blocking the alliance, but not the horde) - the boats and little stuipd fences
- none of this is a game-winning advantage, but taken in entirety - like AB - Gilneas has a clear tactical advantage to the Horde

Silvershard
- this one hardly needs mention, but pre-nerf, the horde could reach and cap all three mine cart spawns before the alliance could get into their nearest cart
- post-nerf, they still have a minor advantage

Silvershard
- this one hardly needs mention, but pre-nerf, the horde could reach and cap all three mine cart spawns before the alliance could get into their nearest cart
- post-nerf, they still have a minor advantage

They couldn't reach north cart before alliance pre-nerfs (there were two for this bg), but indeed could reach the other two always before the alliance at the start, and their rez point were the nearest. These two carts being the fastest, it was a likely win for Horde. And personally, I lost way many more battles in this bg due to that, pre-nerfs, than for all other bgs.

Agreeing also with the rest, such as Blacksmithing in Arathi, and easy to defend farm from this point for Horde thereafter.^^